Re: Conventions
- From: dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Andre Lieven)
- Date: 1 Nov 2005 17:36:00 GMT
"Dan Kimmel" (daniel.kimmel@xxxxxxx) writes:
> "Andre Lieven" <dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dk6q05$7le$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "Dan Kimmel" (daniel.kimmel@xxxxxxx) writes:
>> > "Andre Lieven" <dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:dk67en$r1u$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>
>> >> "Zen Zender" (wnbeard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
>> >> > A member of Fandom is an active convention goer, or
>> >> > convention worker, or club member, fanzine editor, contributor.
> amateur
>> >> > writer, artist.. A person who is an active fan, who contributes
>> >> > to the support of the genre.
>> >>
>> >> Well, thats parsing a thin line. There are folks who view themselves
>> >> as " fans " ( Or, using the older fannish term " faans " ) who are
>> >> not presently active in terms of SF, but who may be active in terms
>> >> of fandom. So, if one fails to read any SF in a year, but one goes
>> >> to, say, four cons, and works on a couple of them, they're surely
>> >> an active fan.
>> >>
>> >> The point that such as Mr. Kimmel and Henderson seem to miss is that
>> >> one can be a fan of fandom. And, thats a legitimate definition of
>> >> " fan ".
>> >
>> > The point you miss is that no one is proposing a quota.
>>
>> Including myself, so this is apparently something that you have missed.
>
> But you did. Glad to see you're know running away from your false claim
> that anyone was saying there was a minimum requirement of SF to be read.
I never made such a claim about the folks who are successfully arguing
against your revisionist nonsense.
>> > If someone didn't
>> > read any SF lately but still has an interest in the genre, I have no
>> > trouble calling them fans.
>
> See, you did it here.
Read the attributations, I didn't write that: YOU did.
> Words have meaning.
Indeed, and they acquire meanings by common consent.
>> Thats all well and good, but it's also utterly irrelevent. Your definition
>> alone, is binding on... no one else.
>
> Glad you concede that your definition -- and your distortion of what I and
> others are saying -- proves nothing.
<Projection> I am merely using the common definition. Deal with it.
>> > It's people who have no interest whatsoever in SF or
>> > related genres who insist they are the real fans that is at issue.
>>
>> As far as I've read the thread, no one has claimed that. So, please
>> play with your Straw Woman on your own time.
>
> It's been claimed many times.
Wrong. You keep shifting your terms' qualifiers.
> When you come in late to a discussion with no intent
> but to flame you're going to embarrass yourself, as you've just done.
<Projection>
> Now go read the thread from the beginning if you want to find out what you
> missed.
Physician, heal thyself.
>> The point remains, that active consumption of SF is not a requirement
>> for being a " fan ", in terms of fannish activities and enjoyments,
>> and that such folks are within the common fannish use of the word,
>> " fan ".
>
> The fact remains that someone with no interest whatsoever in the genre can
> hardly be considered a fan of said genre,
There you go again, that would be correct is " fan ", as used in fandom,
meant " Fan of SF ", which is ONE menaing, but is NOT the ONLY meaning.
> and that the subject of fandom is
> SF, not fandom itself. Fanac is the filter, SF is the subject.
SF is *A* subject. Its not a requirement.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
.
- References:
- Re: Conventions
- From: Andre Lieven
- Re: Conventions
- From: Andre Lieven
- Re: Conventions
- From: Dan Kimmel
- Re: Conventions
- Prev by Date: Re: Random thought of the day
- Next by Date: Re: Conventions
- Previous by thread: Re: Conventions
- Next by thread: Re: Conventions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
